Virginia Injury Lawyers Bloghttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com
Published by Virginia Personal Injury Attorneys — Charles B. Roberts, Personal Injury Attorney, PCMon, 11 Dec 2017 20:06:54 +0000en-UShourly1103603903VirginiaInjuryLawyersBlogComhttps://feedburner.google.comCourt Rejects City’s Assertion of Government Immunity in Recent Premises Liability Casehttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/12/11/court-rejects-citys-assertion-government-immunity-recent-premises-liability-case/
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:06:52 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=813Earlier this month, an appellate court in Illinois issued an opinion in an interesting case that presents relevant issues to victims who are considering filing a Virginia premises liability case against a government entity. Specifically, the case deals with the state’s recreational use statute and whether the trail where the plaintiff was injured was covered under the statute. Ultimately, the court concluded that the “mixed-use” trail at issue was not covered under the statute, and thus immunity did not apply.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured while biking on a mixed-use trail. Evidently, an area of the pavement became cracked after weeds and other vegetation grew up through smaller cracks. The result was a bumpy patch of pavement.

As the plaintiff was riding in a group with her friends, one of the bicyclists ahead of her fell off her bike after running over the bumpy pavement. The plaintiff was unable to avoid a collision with her friend and ended up falling off her bike as well. She sustained serious injuries in the fall and filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city responsible for the maintenance of the trail.

The city argued that it was entitled to absolute immunity under the state’s recreational use statute, which provides that “neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by a condition of … Any hiking, riding, fishing or hunting trail.” The lower court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the city, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the lower court’s decision was reversed. The state’s high court explained that by mentioning “hiking, riding, fishing, or hunting trail” in the statute, the legislators intended for immunity to only apply in accidents occurring on those types of trails. Specifically, the court held that immunity was meant to apply to “primitive, rustic, unimproved” trails. Here, the court concluded that the trail where the plaintiff was injured was more properly considered a “mixed-use” trail because it was paved and had a painted center line to divide the directions of traffic. The trail was also used by the electric company to access power lines. As a result, the court determined that the city was not entitled to immunity and that the plaintiff’s case should proceed.

Virginia’s Recreational Use Statute

Under Va. Code 29.1-509, landowners are provided immunity from liability related to injuries occurring on their property while the injured party was on the property for “hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, participation in water sports, boating, hiking, rock climbing, sightseeing, hang gliding, skydiving, horseback riding, foxhunting, racing, bicycle riding or collecting, gathering, cutting or removing firewood, for any other recreational use.” However, to establish immunity, the landowner must be able to show that they did not charge a fee for the usage of their land and that they were not grossly negligent in failing to warn the injured party about the danger.

Have You Been Injured in a Virginia Park or Government Building?

If you or a loved one has recently suffered back injuries or other serious forms of harm while on government property, you may be entitled to monetary compensation through a Virginia premises liability lawsuit. While issues of immunity may arise in some situations, the burden is on the defendant to establish immunity in most cases. The skilled personal injury lawyers at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts & Associates have extensive experience handling all types of Virginia personal injury cases, including slip-and-fall cases. Call 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation with an attorney today.

]]>813Court Discusses Landowner Liability Relating to Injuries Occurring Off Premiseshttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/12/05/court-discusses-landowner-liability-relating-injuries-occurring-off-premises/
Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:42:26 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=805Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that required the court to discuss an issue that often arises in Virginia premises liability cases. The case involved a plaintiff who was injured while crossing the street from an off-site parking lot to the church that owned the lot. The court had to determine if the church could be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries despite the fact that the accident occurred on a public street that was not controlled by the church.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a member of the defendant church. One evening, the plaintiff planned on attending an evening service at the church. He drove to the church and upon his arrival found that the church’s regular parking lot was full. A volunteer parking attendant directed the plaintiff to the church’s off-site parking lot across a five-lane road.

The plaintiff entered the off-site lot and parked his car. The parking lot was located mid-block, about 100 feet away from either intersection. The plaintiff exited the parking lot and, rather than walk over to the intersection to cross the street, crossed the street mid-block. As the plaintiff was crossing, he was struck by a passing motorist and seriously injured.

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the church, arguing that by maintaining an off-site parking lot, the church assumed a duty to parishioners to ensure that they were able to safely get from the parking lot to the church. The church argued that it did not have a duty to protect the plaintiff, noting that the plaintiff’s injury occurred off church property and on a public road, and the dangers in crossing the road were obvious.

The court agreed with the church, declining to find a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court based its decision on the general rule that landowners generally do not have a duty of care to those who are injured off their property, unless some action of the landowner creates a duty. Here, the court held, merely maintaining an off-site parking lot was insufficient to give rise to a duty of care. The court seemed to imply that had there been any other alleged negligence, the result may have been different.

Have You Been Injured in a Virginia Slip and Fall Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Virginia slip-and-fall accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. The skilled Virginia personal injury attorneys at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts, P.C. have extensive experience representing victims in a wide range of personal injury cases. Call 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation with an attorney to discuss your case today. Calling is free, and we will not bill you for our services unless we are able to help you recover the compensation you deserve.

]]>805Discovery Sanctions in Virginia Personal Injury Caseshttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/11/27/discovery-sanctions-virginia-personal-injury-cases/
Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:37:17 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=798Before a Virginia truck accident case reaches trial, it goes through several other stages. One of the most important stages of a personal injury case is the pre-trial discovery phase. During pre-trial discovery, each party is able to request certain information that the requesting party believes the opposing party has in its possession. While certain information and documents are privileged, in most cases, parties must provide what is ordered by the judge.

Of course, much of the information sought during pre-trial discovery may be considered harmful to the party ordered to release it. However, that does not change the requirement that ordered evidence be handed over to the opposing side. Indeed, under Virginia Supreme Court Rule 4:12, a court can impose a number of sanctions against a party that fails to comply with a court’s discovery order, including precluding the party from making certain arguments, admitting certain evidence, or in some cases, striking the party’s filings.

A recent appellate decision illustrates how seriously courts take discovery requests and the serious consequences one plaintiff faced when she filed notice of her expert witnesses four months after the deadline.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a truck accident with the defendant. According to the court’s recitation of the facts, the plaintiff claimed she was driving on the highway when the defendant truck driver rear-ended her, causing her to lose control of the car and ultimately crash. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff lost control of her vehicle, crashed into a barrier, and then made contact with his truck.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. After reviewing both parties’ motions, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s statement of facts contained in her motion should be stricken because the content of the statement consisted of expert opinions that were not disclosed to the defense until four months after the deadline for discovery had passed. The plaintiff argued that her lateness should be excused because she mistakenly thought that the deadline had not yet passed when she filed her experts’ opinions. However, the court concluded that was an insufficient reason to outweigh the potential prejudice the defendant would suffer by allowing the evidence to be considered.

The plaintiff appealed the court’s decision to a higher court, but the case was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court explained that trial courts have broad discretion regarding precluding late-filed pleadings and that in this case the court was within its discretion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of facts. Without the plaintiff’s statement of facts, there was no conflicting evidence, and the court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Have You Been Injured in a Virginia Auto Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Virginia car accident or truck accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. The dedicated Virginia personal injury attorneys at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts, P.C. have extensive experience representing victims in a wide range of personal injury cases, including truck accidents. Call 703-491-7070 to schedule your free consultation with Attorney Charles B. Roberts today.

]]>798Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Dismissed Under Equine Liability Statutehttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/11/20/plaintiffs-lawsuit-dismissed-equine-liability-statute/
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 20:06:47 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=791Earlier this month, an appellate court in Montana issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that arose when the plaintiff fell off a horse that was outfitted by the defendant. The case is of particular relevance to Virginia accident victims because the Virginia Equine Activity Liability Act is substantially similar to the statute in the court’s opinion.

Generally speaking, when a company provides a service, such as outfitting, the company assumes a duty to make sure the customer is kept reasonably safe. However, specific statutes may apply in certain situations, limiting a company’s duty in those situations. This case analyzed a statute specific to horseback riding.

The Facts

The plaintiff was an inexperienced rider who arranged to go horseback riding with the defendant company. The plaintiff informed the company that he did not have much experience and relied on the company to outfit him with a horse that best fit his size and experience.

Prior to getting on the horse, the plaintiff signed a general release waiver and received some safety instructions. However, shortly after getting on the horse and embarking on the trip, the plaintiff fell off the horse as the saddle slid to one side. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the company, claiming that its employees were negligent in failing to adjust the saddle for him and make sure that it was safe.

The Court’s Analysis

The defendant first argued that the release waiver excused all liability. However, the court rejected that argument, finding that the defendant was not able to contract away liability for this type of claim.

From there, the court looked at the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. Specifically, the court looked at whether the state’s Equine Activities Act precluded liability. In relevant part, the Act states “if the injury is due to an inherent risk of equine activities and the participant expected that risk, then the equine activity sponsor cannot have been negligent.”

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim fit squarely within the text of the Act. The plaintiff claimed that his injury occurred when the saddle slipped off one end of the horse, causing him to fall. The court noted that this is a risk that is inherent in horseback riding, and unless the slippage was caused by the defendant’s failure to “reasonably and prudently inspect or maintain the equipment,” the plaintiff’s case should be dismissed. Since the plaintiff was unable to show that the defendant’s inspection of the saddle was not reasonable or prudent, the alleged act of negligence fell within the Act, and the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.

Have You Been Injured in a Pay-to-Play Activity?

If you have recently been injured while engaging in any kind of recreational activity or pay-to-play activity, you may be entitled to monetary compensation through a Virginia personal injury lawsuit based on spinal cord injuries or other injuries. While there are some statutes that preclude liability in a narrow set of circumstances, the general rule allows for recovery when an accident is caused by another party’s negligence. To learn more, and to speak with an attorney about your case, call the law offices of Charles B. Roberts, P.C. at 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation today.

]]>791Court Mandates Enforcement of Arbitration Clause in Recent Nursing Home Casehttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/11/13/court-mandates-enforcement-arbitration-clause-recent-nursing-home-case/
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:23:51 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=783One of the most hotly debated issues in personal injury law is the enforceability of arbitration contracts in cases against nursing homes and assisted living facilities. These clauses, when enforceable, prevent victims of Virginia nursing home abuse or neglect from filing a complaint in a court of law, and they require that they resolve the claim through binding arbitration.

Arbitration in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. However, the fact that nursing homes are able to choose the arbitrator who will hear the case leaves many wondering whether the forum is as neutral as it is claimed. There are other problems with arbitration clauses as well. For example, many times, they are buried deep in paragraphs of small text, making it unlikely that someone will see and understand what exactly they are giving up by agreeing to arbitrate their future claims.

For these reasons, courts across the country have expressed a hesitancy to enforce some arbitration clauses. However, a court will enforce arbitration clauses in some cases, especially when the clause is clearly designated, the person signing the agreement was of sound mind, and the clause itself is not substantively against public policy. A recent case illustrates the type of clause that may be upheld by the courts; however, it is important to realize that these cases are decided on a case-by-case basis, and even the most seemingly insignificant difference in facts can result in a different outcome.

The Facts

The plaintiff’s mother died while in the care of the defendant nursing home. Prior to her mother’s admission into the home, the plaintiff’s sister signed a pre-admission contract on behalf of her mother. That contract contained an arbitration clause that was clearly designated as such, which also indicated that agreement was optional.

At the time, the plaintiff’s mother had executed a broadly worded power-of-attorney document in favor of her sister. The document gave the plaintiff’s sister power over almost all of her mother’s affairs, including the right to settle claims and make medical decisions.

When the plaintiff filed a nursing home negligence case against the defendant nursing home, the court granted the nursing home’s motion to dismiss the case based on the arbitration agreement. In so doing, the court noted that the clause was clear, and the plaintiff’s sister had the authority to enter into this type of agreement on behalf of her mother. As a result, the plaintiff will need to resolve the case against the nursing home through arbitration.

Is Your Loved One at Risk?

If you have a loved one in a Virginia nursing home, and you believe that they have experienced abuse or neglect, you may be entitled to monetary compensation through a Virginia personal injury lawsuit. While arbitration agreements prevent some lawsuits from moving forward in the court system, not all arbitration agreements are found to be valid. The dedicated Virginia personal injury and wrongful death attorneys at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts & Associates have the knowledge and experience necessary to invalidate unfair arbitration agreements or those that were not executed properly. Call 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation with an attorney today.

]]>783Plaintiff Enters into Broad Settlement Agreement, Inadvertently Excusing Multiple Partieshttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/11/06/plaintiff-enters-broad-settlement-agreement-inadvertently-excusing-multiple-parties/
Mon, 06 Nov 2017 16:49:09 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=776Last month, an appellate court in Mississippi issued an interesting opinion that should act as a word of caution to victims who are considering bringing an Indiana personal injury case. The opinion discusses the breadth of a settlement agreement entered into by the plaintiff and one of the parties she named as a defendant. Ultimately, due to the broad language included in the agreement, the court concluded that the agreement excused an additional party from the plaintiff’s case, despite that not being her intention.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was walking on the sidewalk in front of an auto parts store when she stepped into a sunken hole where a utility box had been placed. The plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of her fall, and she filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city where the accident occurred, the utility commission that placed the box, and the auto parts store.

During pre-trial negotiations, the plaintiff entered into settlement agreements with the city as well as the auto parts store. Relevant to this case is the agreement between the plaintiff and the city. That agreement included language that released the city from liability, as well as its “successors, agents, attorneys, insurers, subsidiaries, sister or parent companies, assigns, employees, representatives, [and] stockholders.”

Once the parties involved in the agreement were dismissed, the case proceeded against the utility commission only. However, after pre-trial discovery, the commission moved to be dismissed from the plaintiff’s case under the theory that the agreement between the plaintiff and the city also included the utility commission because it was a “subsidiary” of the city.

The plaintiff objected, arguing that the utility commission did not sign the agreement and that it was not her intention to excuse the commission from the lawsuit. However, the court agreed with the utility commission. The court pointed to a specific document filed by the plaintiff earlier in the case, in which the plaintiff addressed the utility commission as a “subsidiary” of the city. This, the court held, indicated that the plaintiff should have known that by signing the agreement with the city, the utility commission was also going to be excused from the lawsuit. As a result of the court’s decision, the plaintiff will not be permitted to seek additional compensation from the utility commission.

Have You Been Injured in a Virginia Slip-and-Fall Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Virginia slip-and-fall accident causing back injuries or other injuries, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. In Virginia, all landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property. The level of duty owed depends heavily on the relationship between the parties and the reason why the injured party was on the defendant’s land. The skilled Virginia personal injury attorneys at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts have extensive experience assisting victims with pursuing the compensation they need and deserve. Call 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation with an attorney today.

]]>776“Fireman’s Rule” Prevents Police Officer from Pursuing Personal Injury Casehttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/10/25/firemans-rule-prevents-police-officer-pursuing-personal-injury-case/
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:38:27 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=769When someone is injured in a Virginia car accident, they may pursue compensation for the injuries they sustained through a personal injury lawsuit. Depending on the type of accident and the relationship between the parties, there may be one or more defenses that can prevent the defendant from being found liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. One defense, called the “fireman’s rule,” is discussed in a recent appellate opinion involving a police officer who was injured in a car accident while responding to the scene of an accident.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was on duty as a police officer when he received a radio call dispatching him to the scene of an accident where a motorist slid off the roadway, rolled, and ended up in a nearby field. The evidence presented showed that the motorist lost control of his vehicle when it encountered a patch of grass clippings. The clippings had been left behind when an employee of a nearby used car dealership mowed the grass and failed to clean up the clippings. A subsequent rain storm wet the clippings, which made a slick spot on the road.

As the plaintiff was responding to the scene, he encountered the area of the roadway with the wet grass clippings. The plaintiff lost control of his patrol car and ended up veering off the side of the road and into a tree, sustaining serious injuries as a result.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the used car dealership, arguing that the employee of the dealership was negligent in failing to clean up the grass clippings, which caused the plaintiff to lose control of his patrol car and crash into the tree. The dealership argued that under the fireman’s rule, the plaintiff was precluded from recovering compensation for his injuries because, as a police officer, he assumed the risk of injury.

The Fireman’s Rule in Virginia

In Virginia, the fireman’s rule is a version of a larger common-law defense known as assumption of the risk. Under this doctrine, a plaintiff cannot recover for injuries that were sustained while participating in an activity that the plaintiff knew carried the specific risk of injury that resulted in the accident. The fireman’s rule applies to both police officers and firefighters, and it clarifies that, as a matter of law, these emergency responders assume a risk, as long as that risk is what brought them to the scene.

The Court’s Decision

The court concluded that the fireman’s rule barred the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The court explained that the risk that brought the plaintiff to the scene – the wet grass clippings – was the very same that caused the accident resulting in his injuries. Thus, the facts fit squarely within the fireman’s rule, and the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.

Have You Been Injured in a Virginia Car Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Virginia car accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. While the fireman’s rule applies only to a narrow subset of Virginia personal injury plaintiffs, other defenses to your claim may exist. However, with the assistance of an experienced Virginia personal injury attorney, you can be prepared for any defense that the other side may bring. Call the law offices of Charles B. Roberts, P.C. at 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation with a knowledgeable and experienced Virginia personal injury attorney. Calling is free, and we will not bill you for our services unless we are able to help you recover compensation for your injuries.

]]>769Expert Testimony in Virginia Medical Malpractice Caseshttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/10/17/expert-testimony-virginia-medical-malpractice-cases/
Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:19:32 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=762Doctors and other medical professionals are held to a high standard when it comes to the level of care that is expected of them. Indeed, when a medical professional fails to live up to the standards to which society holds them, they may be held liable for any resulting injuries though a Virginia medical malpractice lawsuit. However, proving a case of medical malpractice requires knowledge of both the science behind the medicine and also the law that applies to medical malpractice cases.

One of the most important decisions any medical malpractice plaintiff must make is in the selection of their expert witnesses. Since most judges and jurors do not have advanced medical knowledge, courts often require plaintiffs to present an expert witness who can explain certain complex issues to the jury and offer their expert opinion. Of course, expert witnesses are also held to a high standard and must be accepted by the court before their testimony will be admissible.

A recent case illustrates the difficulties one plaintiff had when attempting to establish the elements of her medical malpractice case after the court determined that her expert witness’ testimony was not admissible.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a patient at the defendant medical center during the birth of her baby boy. Shortly after the plaintiff’s son was born, he began having seizures. Believing her son’s condition to be a result of negligent medical care provided at delivery, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice case against the medical center and the delivering midwife.

The plaintiff presented an OB/GYN as her expert witness to establish that the defendants’ actions fell short of the standard of care they owed to the plaintiff. The expert prepared a report indicating that, in his opinion, the plaintiff’s son’s injuries were results of decisions made by the delivering midwife during labor. However, the particular doctor the plaintiff called was focused more on research than practice, and he had not delivered a baby since 2003. Additionally, the expert’s methodologies were admittedly unorthodox and not in line with the medical community’s standards.

The defendants asked the court to prevent the expert from testifying, and the court granted the defendants’ request. The court explained that in order to be accepted, an expert’s opinion must be based on reliable methodologies that have been tested and peer-reviewed. Here, the court explained, that was not the case. The expert candidly wrote in one of his publications that his methodology was against the prevailing diagnostic theory. He also admitted to never having diagnosed anyone with the specific condition with which the plaintiff’s son was born. As a result, the expert’s testimony was not admitted at trial, and the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.

Expert Testimony in Virginia Medical Malpractice Cases

In Virginia, the requirements for introducing expert testimony are less onerous than those discussed in the case above. Specifically, a plaintiff must show that the expert’s opinion will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence. However, while the expert’s testimony will more often be admitted in Virginia courts, an expert’s experience and credibility will be weighed against the opposing expert’s, making the decision of expert selection extremely important to a case’s ultimate success.

Have You Been a Victim of Medical Malpractice?

If you or a loved one has recently been a victim of what you believe to have been negligent medical care, you may be entitled to compensation through a Virginia medical malpractice lawsuit. The skilled personal injury and medical malpractice attorneys at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts, P.C. have extensive experience helping injured patients seek the compensation they need and deserve. We also have a broad network of medical expert witnesses with whom we consult whenever necessary. Call 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation with a dedicated Virginia medical malpractice attorney today.

]]>762Plaintiff’s Case Against Insurance Company Survives At-Fault Driver’s Bankruptcy Filinghttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/10/12/plaintiffs-case-insurance-company-survives-fault-drivers-bankruptcy-filing/
Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:13:21 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=754Insurance companies are supposed to make life after a Virginia car accident easier, although in reality, that is not always the case. In too many cases, insurance companies look for ways to avoid paying out on an accident victim’s claim, leaving the accident victim without any real means of recovery.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Alabama issued a written opinion in a car accident case that provides valuable insight to Virginia car accident victims. The case illustrates how difficult it can be to deal with an insurance company following a car accident – even a driver’s own insurance company.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was involved in a car accident with another driver and sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Believing that the other driver was at fault for the accident, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against the other driver as well as that driver’s insurance company. Since the plaintiff was unsure whether the other driver’s insurance limits would cover all of his expenses, the plaintiff also named his own insurance company in the lawsuit, citing his policy’s underinsured motorist provision.

After the case was filed, but before it reached trial, the other driver filed for bankruptcy. Since a successful bankruptcy petition would have prevented the plaintiff from collecting any award amount he could have received from the now bankrupt driver, the court dismissed the other driver from the lawsuit.

The plaintiff’s own insurance company then argued that it too should be dismissed from the case. The trial court agreed, reasoning that the benefits under the plaintiff’s insurance policy would not trigger because he was no longer legally entitled to recover for his injuries from the at-fault driver. The plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court rejected the insurance company’s argument. The court explained that the plaintiff was not prevented from establishing the merits of her claim against the driver, only from actually collecting any award that would have been issued. That being the case, the insurance company was still liable to honor the plaintiff’s insurance contract because the claim was a legally cognizable one. The court also explained that the bankruptcy code was not written to provide the benefits of declaring bankruptcy to third parties, such as insurance companies.

Have You Been Injured in a Virginia Car Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in a Virginia car accident, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. The dedicated Virginia personal injury and wrongful death attorneys at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts, P.C. have an extensive knowledge of personal injury law and decades of practical experience successfully representing clients in all types of Virginia personal injury matters. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation with a dedicated Virginia personal injury attorney, call 703-491-7070 today. Calling is free, and we will not bill you for our services unless we are able to help you obtain compensation.

]]>754Statutes of Limitations in Virginia Personal Injury Caseshttps://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/2017/10/05/statutes-limitations-virginia-personal-injury-cases/
Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:58:00 +0000https://www.virginiainjurylawyersblog.com/?p=747When someone is injured due to the alleged negligence of another party, the injured party may be entitled to compensation for their injuries from the at-fault party through a Virginia personal injury case. All personal injury cases, however, must be filed within a certain amount of time. If a plaintiff files their case after the applicable statute of limitations has expired, the court will have no choice but to dismiss the case.

Often, when a Virginia personal injury case is filed more than two years after the date of the injury, there is significant litigation over statutes of limitations. This is because the general statute of limitations for all Virginia personal injury cases is two years. Of course, in some cases, there are exceptions to the two-year rule, but these exceptions are rarely obvious and often must be determined by the courts.

A recent appellate court opinion illustrates the difficulties two plaintiffs encountered when they filed a personal injury lawsuit after the two-year statute of limitations.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs previously rented a home from the defendant. One day, the plaintiffs’ son was in the car port, when he leaned up against a brick wall that collapsed, resulting in serious injuries. The initial case against the defendant was filed by the parents on behalf of their son, who was a minor. Once their son turned 18, the case was dismissed so that their son could proceed on his own behalf.

The son eventually received a $50,000 judgment against the defendant. This judgment, however, did not include any of the medical expenses that were incurred after the accident because those were paid by his parents – the plaintiffs. Thus, in an attempt to recoup those medical expenses, the parents filed a “personal property” claim against the defendant.

In Georgia, personal injury cases must be filed within two years. Personal property claims, on the other hand, are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. By asserting that the claim was for personal property, the plaintiffs hoped to avoid the two-year statute of limitations.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that their case was a personal property claim. The court began by explaining that it is true that parents do have a personal property interest in the medical expenses they pay on behalf of their children. However, the mere fact that the plaintiffs have a personal property right cannot transform a personal injury case into a personal property case, the court explained. The court looked at the underlying claims, finding that they were clearly personal injury claims. Thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the two-year statute of limitations.

As is the case above, Virginia has different statutes of limitations for different causes of action. For example, while personal injury claims must generally be brought within two years, medical malpractice plaintiffs are given a slightly longer time to file their cases.

Have You Been Injured in a Virginia Accident?

If you or a loved one has recently been injured in any kind of Virginia accident that caused spinal cord injuries or other serious harm, you may be entitled to monetary compensation. Each Virginia personal injury case must be filed within a certain amount of time, or it will be dismissed. The skilled Virginia personal injury attorneys at the law offices of Charles B. Roberts, P.C. have the experience and dedication you need to feel comfortable placing your case in their hands. Call 703-491-7070 to schedule a free consultation with a dedicated Virginia personal injury lawyer today. Calling is free, and we will not charge you for the time and effort we put into your case unless we are able to help you obtain the compensation you deserve.